After the lecture, we were free to explore the museum. The museum
brochure offers a "Journey Through Time", and promises answers to the
following questions: "Do religion and science clash? Why is there pain
and suffering in the world? What is the evidence for the Genesis
Flood? How old is the earth? What about the origins of mankind,
nations, and languages?" The brochure states: "You've heard the
stories - now confront the facts!" I was eager to confront the facts,
so I chose to explore on my own rather than join an organized
tour. Except for our group of about 25 skeptics, the museum was nearly
empty.

One enters the museum through the seven days of creation as described
in Genesis 1, not Genesis 2. No mention is made as to why one creation
sequence was chosen over the other. There are scale models of the
Tower of Babel and the Ark. A painting of the Ark interior shows
dinosaurs happily standing in stalls, on manure-free floors. I was
most interested in the ICR's treatment of fossil humans, geology, and
the Flood, however, so I concentrated my efforts in these areas. I was
drawn first to "Fossils and Post-Flood Man" exhibit. The various
fossils of pre- and archaic humans are represented by bas-relief
skulls only. Although the skull representations seemed accurate
enough, one wonders why the complete skeletons are not shown. Could it
possibly be that the addition of spinal columns, ribs, hands, and feet
might make these creatures look a little more transitional? The
information presented about each skull is a strange blend of
reasonable accuracy mixed in with inaccurate statements and wild
conjecture.

The museum display accurately explains that over 200 Homo
erectus individuals have been found. Although the orthodox
evolutionary explanation is given (that H. erectus represents
an evolutionary stage from a more primitive form), an "alternative"
evolutionary explanation is also given -- that H. erectus is
"true man", with "bi-pedal posture and cranial capacity within at
least the lower range of modern man". I realize that the designation
Homo is somewhat arbitrary, but I suspect that even the biggest
"lumpers" in the world of paleontology would not consider Homo
erectus to be "true man".

The creationist explanation is ambiguous: that H. erectus is
"probably a true human being", "although some so-called Homo
erectus fossils possibly represented extinct apes". No evidence
supporting either the "true human" or "extinct ape" hypothesis is
given. It is also stated that H. erectus fossils have been
associated with stone tools, the controlled use of fire, evidence of
burial and cremation, and the use of red ocher in art and burial. I
have found evidence of only the first two attributes -- stone tools
and fire -- associated with H. erectus. The burial and use of
ocher has been, to the best of my knowledge, associated with
Neanderthals, not H. erectus. Also, no mention is made that the
stone tools associated with H. erectus are quite different from
those associated with Neanderthals or modern humans. (Tattersall
1995:26-7).

Some reasonably accurate information is given regarding Neanderthals
-- that about 300 individuals have been found, and most of the
locations are in Europe. It is said that the relationship of
Neanderthals to modern humans represents a current problem in
anthropology -- did Neanderthals evolve into, intermarry with, or get
killed off by modern humans? A look at the recent literature indicates
that this is, indeed, an ongoing research problem. The creationist
interpretation of Neanderthals is that they were simply cold-adapted
modern humans with bodies similar to those of Eskimos. While most
paleontologists would agree that Eskimos have characteristics that are
adaptations to cold (short, muscular stature, for instance), there are
significant differences in the thickness of bones and skull structure
that separate all extant humans -- Eskimos included -- from
Neanderthals. There is, of course, no mention of molecular data, such
as that from Pääbo and Krings, that shows significant
mitochondrial DNA differences between a Neanderthal and modern
humans. A 379 nucleotide sequence from a Neanderthal specimen averaged
27 differences from the same sequence in modern humans; modern humans
would average eight differences from each other. For this degree of
difference, it has been estimated that Neanderthals and
H. sapiens evolved separately for ca. 500,000 years (Summarized
in Kunzig 1998:32-33). Another recent article describes 200-300,000
year old Neanderthal precursors in Atapuerca, Spain (Rightmire
1997:917-918). Will the ICR adjust the display to reflect the new
evidence? I doubt it.

The display also shows a skull of "Archaic Homo sapiens" -- "40
fossils" with cranial capacities larger than that of H. erectus
that "do not fit into other categories". These are also passed off as
examples of post-Flood genetic diversity, and no other information is
given.

Finally, "Cave Men" are discussed. Perhaps these are Cro-Magnons,
although all that is said about them is that they were "not subhuman
transitions between apes and humans" but that they were "...weaker,
probably degenerate, descendants of those migrating away from
Babel. Placed in a harsh environment without time or ability to use
technology, they led simple, crude lives. They were alive in Job's day
(Job 30:1-8)." This statement should make Biblical scholars
blanch. Job 30 makes a reference to "those who are younger than
I (30:1)" who make fun of Job. They seem to live at the edges of Job's
society, but there is no reference in Job to them being primitive, but
simply a "senseless, disreputable brood (30:8)" -- they sound more
like Old Testament gang-bangers. No mention is made here of the
wonderful cave paintings of Lascaux and Altamira, or the bone
implements and artifacts made by "cave men" -- I guess that would make
the "cave men" seem less degenerate.

The ICR display states that all of these fossils "probably represent
Post-Flood ethnic and/or language groups, and demonstrate man's
genetic diversity." It is further asserted that humans migrated to all
parts of the globe during a post-Flood/ post-Babel ice age: "During
the 'Ice Age' so much water was frozen that sea level was lowered
several hundred feet. Ice shelves covered much of the oceans poleward
of 45 degrees. This made the continents accessible, thus allowing
migration to occur. Furthermore, no competition for the uninhabited
land was necessary, and since food was scarce, migration was
encouraged. Human migration was enforced by the confusion of languages
at Babel. The 'Table of Nations', in Genesis 10, informs us of
the basic migration patterns." In fact, Genesis 10 does not
indicate place names beyond the Middle East: Egypt, Canaan, Assyria,
Gaza, and Sheba are named; India, China, Australia, and other points
north, south, and east are not.

Significant geologic details are left out of the display. For
instance, no mention is made that H. erectus, Neanderthal,
"archaic", and "cave man" fossils are uniformly found in sedimentary
strata beneath humans associated with agriculture and urban
centers, for instance. No mention is made as to why these "degenerate
fossils" of humans -- H. erectus, Neanderthals, etc, have
never been found in North or South America. Why not? It's a
long way from the tower of Babel to Mexico City -- plenty of time for
degeneration. And where are the pre-Flood fossils? One would think
that there would be at least some idea of what humankind looked like
before the Flood, yet no putative fossils of pre-Flood humans are to
be found.

The origin of languages is attributed solely to the account in
Genesis 11:1-9: "The archaeological, genetic, and linguistic
evidences are all compatible with the Biblical record of dispersion
from the Tower of Babel," and "Evidence suggests a link between
genetics and linguistics. One linguist, Luigi Cavalli-Sforza,
suggested that genes and language diverged simultaneously into
populations."

Since the ICR chose to mention the geneticist Dr. L.Luca
Cavalli-Sforza, an expert in the field of genes, migrations, and
languages, I was interested in what Cavalli-Sforza really has to say
on the subject. Cavalli-Sforza disagrees categorically with the
ICR on the origin of humans: "Three hundred thousand and perhaps more
years ago various types of archaic sapiens already peopled various
parts of the world...Neanderthal appears in the Middle East about
sixty thousand years ago, when there is no sign of modern humans in
the area (Cavalli-Sforza 1995:56), and "Genes, people, and languages
have thus diverged in tandem, through a series of migrations that
apparently began in Africa and spread through Asia to Europe, the New
World, and the Pacific (Cavalli-Sforza 1991:104).

The ICR, eager to connect language development with the tower of
Babel, asserts that "The observable data indicate that no period of
prehistoric language development ever existed." One wonders how would
one accumulate 'observable data' in a pre-literate society?
Cavalli-Sforza also addresses the issue: "Languages have very scarce
'fossil' information, usually limited to situations in which writing
was developed, taking us back at most 5000 years...Whether human
languages had a single or multiple origins is considered by most
linguists to be insoluble" (Cavalli-Sforza 1994:96).

The ICR is obviously delighted with the relationship of genes and
languages: "The close relation with language and genetics would be
consistent with the creation model. The possibility of a single
split-up time would be an added bonus for the creation theory." What
they leave out is the evidence summarized by Cavalli-Sforza and
consistent with evolutionary theory: "Human evolution is punctuated by
the splitting of populations into parts, some of which settle
elsewhere. Each fragment evolves linguistic and genetic patterns that
bear the marks of shared branching points." (Cavalli-Sforza
1991:109). "This [archaeological] record -- bones and stone implements
for the most part -- shows that Africa was indeed the original
homeland of hominids. From there migrations must have proceeded from
Africa to Asia via the isthmus of Suez and, later, from Asia to
Europe" (Cavalli-Sforza 1991:107). "The most important difference in
the human gene pool is that between Africans and non-Africans...This
suggests that the split between Africans and non-Africans was the
earliest in human evolutionary history..."(Cavalli-Sforza 1994:93).

I have seen many museum displays that treat the origin of humans. The
Museum of Creation and Earth History is guilty of sins of omission in
its treatment of human fossils. Visitors have no opportunity to make
real comparisons between fossil human forms, because almost no fossil
evidence is depicted. Obvious details are left out, such as the
gradual increase in skull size from H. erectus to Neanderthal
and H. sapiens. Other basic geological data, such as the depth
and relative age of the strata in which fossils are found, is not
addressed. Some data concerning H. erectus is simply
wrong. Furthermore, no positive evidence is presented to
support the "creation model". At the very least I expected to see what
pre-Flood humans looked like, what fossil evidence there was to
support the existence of this population, and why, if it is proposed
that H. erectus and Neanderthal were degenerate post-Flood
"true men", this degeneration does not seem to have happened in the
Americas.

I was distressed, but not surprised, to see the ideas of yet another
orthodox scientist used - out of context - to support the ICR's ideas
of dispersion from the Tower of Babel. I hope it has been made clear
that nothing in the work of Cavalli-Sforza supports any ICR premise
concerning the development of human populations and languages. There
is no independent confirmation of the existence of the Tower of Babel
or the migration of humans as described in the museum, and a lot of
evidence to the contrary. And how did these "degenerate" people,
migrating away from Babel "leading simple, crude lives" manage to be
intelligent enough to speak complex languages anyway?

I had confronted "the facts." Many of "the facts" were missing, and
some of the "facts" were just plain wrong. However, I was ready for
more facts, and eager to look at the ICR's version of geology.